Jeff, Thanks for your thoughts but I think I'm closer to Mike on this one. I'll concede that even the old masters placed bunkers and other hazards in less than optimal strategic positions from time to time. However I'll suggest that they didn't advertise that they thought this lack of strategy was an advancement in the art. Moreover, there were a lot more hazards that exhibited the characteristics that I favored in my prior posts than you'll find in Fazio's work.
My real problem is your suggestion that good players will always find a way to avoid the bunker (or other hazard) even if flirting with it would give them a significant strategic advantage. Taken to its logical conclusion, strategy devolves to missing all hazards regardless of the line needed to avoid them. Thus the placement of hazards would dictate the intended line of play as opposed to providing options. The only "risk/reward" concern would be whether the player could carry the hazard as he would scrupulously avoid it by affording each hazard a wide berth. If that is the case, then Fazio is probably right. Strategy becomes irrelevant and the only things that count are length, beauty, and green speeds. I suggest there is a little more to architecture than that and much of it comes down to creating holes that are interesting to play repeatedly. Much of that interest comes out of strategic considerations.
Finally, while I concede that the better player (wherever you draw that line) may have different strategic concerns and a greater number of options to consider in playing a given shot or hole, I would suggest that any player who has an idea where his next shot is likely to go can be required to think his way around a course by good architecture. Courses that provide such a challenge wll become favorites for all types of players assuming other factors (cost, conditioning etc) are reasonably equal.
Shelly,
Points taken. However, I would still be interested in randomly picking the best of modern vs old holes (as originally configured) and debating the relative merits of strategy. Basically, I think that much of the support for the old guys is based as much on nostalgia, and comparing the best of the old with the handiest (usually newest) Fazio course, as it is real merit. I know a true comparison is impossible, and debate is inevitable.
As to "missing hazards at all costs" and "design merely dictating the line" frankly, I feel that that is just what is happened to design, as influenced by current good players, and IMHO, starting with the impact of one Jack Nicklaus as player and designer. He played to miss hazards, and was the first I recall to emphasize definition to a then nearly unprecedented degree, albeit, it has been building slowly for decades (at least based on my takes on Golden Age writings)
In fact, I was kind of alluding to the fact that if you asked most/many good players today, they would tell you that design should dictate, suggest, and assist the "proper" line of play, avoid confusion, etc. Also, modern equipment does make hitting greens from different angles easier than hitting from a bunker near a preferred angle, and players have adapted to the sum total of trends in golf, equipment, and maintenance.
That Fazio has embraced ideas that others developed and promoted to the highest degree right now is not suprising. In fact, he, to my understanding, purposely built his career on being the signature architect who built playable courses (unlike Dye and Jack) and it might not suit all tastes, including yours or mine, but obviously, he hit the market right on the bulls eye.
He realizes that those rich cats in Palm Desert where there are many high end Faz courses are largely interested in playing before it gets hot, enjoying the scenery, and getting home for a few belts and an afternoon nap before going out to dinner. I doubt that their dinner conversations trend towards the subtley of strategic design to any signifigant degree. I bet the do discuss what color petunias the super will plant around the clubhouse this year.
Fazio knows his audience. Nuff said. As for a discussion board like this one, the questions surrounding strategy are more along the lines of "Do Golden Age strategies Still Work with all the other changes in Golf?" I actually think they still work for average golfers, although the number of optional carry fw bunkers should be, and have been reduced from the GA. I don't think they work as well for top players for reasons I think I have discussed, and would never design soley based on nostalgia myself. I look at hole a hole will be played by many today.
Garland,
I agree that average players have different strategies and a good design considers those, including laying up, playing to the center of the green, etc. See above.
I hope that doesn't sound too glib, and I am still somewhat inspired by Barney
and his posting style.....Whether Golden Age strategies are the be all - end all of golf design that can never be topped is a worthy and provocative discussion to be had.